Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I'm not sure that you could get to a point where you were >> generating this stuff from anything that wasn't in essence an arcane >> representation of the .c files. It might be slightly harder to make >> errors of omission that way, but I'm suspicious that that would come at >> the cost of a net loss of readability.
> That is possible, but the current situation isn't good either. > Despite everybody's best efforts, we mess this up more than is really > desirable. Commit b8fe12a83622b350dc6849f8bb933bd8a86c1424 fixed bugs > in a whole bunch of preceding commits, and I wonder if anybody else > would have found those if Noah hadn't. It's just too easy to miss > these things today. If generating the .c files isn't practical, > another alternative worth exploring would be a tool to cross-check > them against the .h files. Yeah, I could get on board with that. It doesn't seem terribly hard: just make sure that all fields mentioned in the struct declaration are mentioned in each relevant routine. (Cases where we intentionally skip a field could be handled by adding a no-op macro, eg "COPY_IGNORE(foo);") It would be nice if we could also check that the macro type is sane for the field datatype (eg, not use COPY_SCALAR_FIELD() for a pointer field). But that would probably increase the difficulty very substantially for just a small gain in error detection. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers